[ofordi nabokei]

As far as I'm aware the applicant has to be from a school that is maintained by the local authority. If acadamies and free schools are not under the LA then I would presume the parent governor could not stand.

In our parent governor election last year we rejected an applicant on the basis they were from an independant school, not maintained by this council. At the time we consulted with the DCSF to help with the decision.

If more schools are moving to academie or free school status, government may well review the regulations. We are perhaps seeing this already with the appointement of an academies representative on Schools Forum.

[Henry Powell]

Hi Jacqueline

I think your question was more regarding existing reps whose schools academise...

The legislation lists the circumstances in which an already elected rep must cease office, and a change to the designation of the school is not mentioned:

"Disqualification from holding office as a parent governor representative
7. - (1) A parent governor representative who qualified for election under these Regulations shall cease to be qualified to hold that office if -
(a)he resigns or is disqualified from the office of parent governor,
(b)he ceases to be a parent governor for any reason other than -
(i)he has completed his term of office, or
(ii)he no longer holds office as a result of the discontinuance of the school at which he was a parent governor, or
(iii)he no longer holds office as a result of a change in the constitution of the governing body of the school at which he was a parent governor."

[Ed Hammond]

I would have thought that, were the requirement for education co-optees to continue (and we have suggested to Government that they be abolished) the provisions of the Education Act 1996 would need to be changed to allow a parent governor from any local school - academy, maintained or independent - to sit on the committee to scrutinise the council's general policies relating to young people, rather than exclusive scrutiny of education issues (on which councils these days have no formal control).

How would people react to the removal of the requirement to have education co-optees? I tried contacting the National Governors' Association about our views two or three months ago but didn't get a response.

[Josh Mynott]

Ehammond Wrote:How would people react to the removal of the requirement to have education co-optees? I tried contacting the National Governors' Association about our views two or three months ago but didn't get a response.

Absolutely & definitely, the requirement must go. That is not to criticise the individual co-optees themsleves, who have, I know, made an excellent contribution in many places. However, the principle of statutory cooptees on scrutiny is wrong. the idea of having them for only one single issue is wrong, and the notion of having them only for a single issue that the council has limited control over is wrong.

Apart from that, I'm not bothered.

[Steve Sienkiewicz]

I too would be happy for this requirement to disappear. Our two parent governor places have been vacant for some time anyway, due to no one being interested in taking up the places.